The Conservative Conspiracy of Classification
When the government wants a secret they classify it, hence a classification.
I have not yet read Fahrenheit 451 but I know the general plot as explained by a co-worker: a future where books are banned and thought suppressed. We have not to fear a future of this making by people of a liberal mindset.
I saw a freighting group on Facebook.com; Do NOT support "The Golden Compass". I have liberal tendencies but would not say that I am liberal, just logical. I was raised a Catholic, went to college and lost God, then found God as a Christian, but have since had my eyes opened. I no longer have a narrow view of religion and faith in the form of a conventional religion (Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.)
The Facebook.com group is not the first time I have herd of controversy surrounding the upcoming movie "The Golden Compass". A recent article in the Wisconsin State Journal talked about how parents were going to keep their children home from a trip to see the movie, the trip was earned by hard work and the cost was the student’s responsibility.
It is this mindset that is dangerous, the one that prevents people from even contemplating an alternate view for fear that they might be wrong. It is because of this mindset that the fearful then wish to suppress the free thought and actions of others thus eventually leading to tyranny and oppression.
Even though I do not necessarily agree with all of the content in the Bible I think people should have access to it and read it, it has value and wisdom that many people could benefit from, and many do. I have benefited from its many lessons. I will, if I have children encourage them to read it to think about it and learn from the Bible. I will not suppress something I disagree with, and I will not support others who wish to suppress truth. All things have some truth, nothing has all truth.
Back to the group that started all this, in the group info section there were these comments:
I find it ironic that religious people who believe in a God, a God that is generally all powerful, all knowing, and an immortal being, would fear a movie or book that has a god dieing in it. If the religions are right how can God die?
To me the fear is anti-desire; it is the opposite of what you want. So to fear the death of God is to want God to live, but the crux of fear is that the opposite of what you want is a possibility. So to fear the death of God is to admit that the death of God is possible.
And now for the Conspiracy:
Briefly stated is the implied conspiracy that the movies goal is to get children to read the books and then believe that gods can die.
Of course the producers of the film, the screenwriters, the director, the studio, the distributor, the actors and the staff all wanted to spread the word that God can die. Profit had nothing at all to do with the movie being made. It was all about enticing innocent children to read a book that has a god die in it so that they will doubt their religion.
In the end we must all remember:
Aristotle is said to have said,
All things have some truth, nothing has all truth.
Fear is the opposite of your desire, but it must be a possibility or it can not be feared.
I have not yet read Fahrenheit 451 but I know the general plot as explained by a co-worker: a future where books are banned and thought suppressed. We have not to fear a future of this making by people of a liberal mindset.
I saw a freighting group on Facebook.com; Do NOT support "The Golden Compass". I have liberal tendencies but would not say that I am liberal, just logical. I was raised a Catholic, went to college and lost God, then found God as a Christian, but have since had my eyes opened. I no longer have a narrow view of religion and faith in the form of a conventional religion (Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.)
The Facebook.com group is not the first time I have herd of controversy surrounding the upcoming movie "The Golden Compass". A recent article in the Wisconsin State Journal talked about how parents were going to keep their children home from a trip to see the movie, the trip was earned by hard work and the cost was the student’s responsibility.
It is this mindset that is dangerous, the one that prevents people from even contemplating an alternate view for fear that they might be wrong. It is because of this mindset that the fearful then wish to suppress the free thought and actions of others thus eventually leading to tyranny and oppression.
Even though I do not necessarily agree with all of the content in the Bible I think people should have access to it and read it, it has value and wisdom that many people could benefit from, and many do. I have benefited from its many lessons. I will, if I have children encourage them to read it to think about it and learn from the Bible. I will not suppress something I disagree with, and I will not support others who wish to suppress truth. All things have some truth, nothing has all truth.
Back to the group that started all this, in the group info section there were these comments:
“In the final book a boy and girl kill God so they can do as they please”
I find it ironic that religious people who believe in a God, a God that is generally all powerful, all knowing, and an immortal being, would fear a movie or book that has a god dieing in it. If the religions are right how can God die?
To me the fear is anti-desire; it is the opposite of what you want. So to fear the death of God is to want God to live, but the crux of fear is that the opposite of what you want is a possibility. So to fear the death of God is to admit that the death of God is possible.
And now for the Conspiracy:
Briefly stated is the implied conspiracy that the movies goal is to get children to read the books and then believe that gods can die.
“The movie is … designed to be … attractive in the hope unsuspecting parents will take … children to see the the movie and that the children will want the books for Christmas.”
Of course the producers of the film, the screenwriters, the director, the studio, the distributor, the actors and the staff all wanted to spread the word that God can die. Profit had nothing at all to do with the movie being made. It was all about enticing innocent children to read a book that has a god die in it so that they will doubt their religion.
In the end we must all remember:
Aristotle is said to have said,
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”It is the diametrically opposed mindset as the one described by Aristotle that we must fear for it will eventually lead to oppression of free thought.
All things have some truth, nothing has all truth.
Fear is the opposite of your desire, but it must be a possibility or it can not be feared.
posted by MMM at 6:52 PM
5 Comments:
I think your conclusion is all wrong. Yes, there are probably some people who are afraid of this book. As a matter of fact, I read the first book in the series, and thought it was total rubbish.
Nonetheless, as a Catholic Christian, I cannot give support to something which serves to undermine the very protector of Truth itself. For goodness sake, the enemies in the final book are named The Magisterium.
I am plenty capably of entertaining notions which are antithetical to my own. I very much enjoy, for instance, the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. But I cannot justify giving support to a movie like The Golden Compass.
Also, while there is a time to contemplate alternative "truths"--really falsities--not everyone is ready to entertain them at all times. I would no more give a child Nietzsche than I would allow him to see The Golden Compass. Both strike me as absurd.
Whether or not people actually fear the content that they object to is not really at the root of this position paper. The root of this position is the condemnation of material in a unilateral sense; that is without negotiation.
The point then is that if these people were in a position of power they would be inclined to ban material deemed heretical to their position. This has been witnessed within the last ten years.
A position without justification is to me worthless and powerless; action without understanding is a quality of beasts for they abstract not. However many people do not understand this and so are easily impressed and follow without hesitation or skepticism.
My problem with the Facebook.com group is that there is no dialog and no justification of their position.
Magisterium: the authority and power of the church to teach religious truth.
Was Jesus Christ not skeptical and disapproving of the Jewish Magisterium? Jesus took actions to express this disapproval and give humans a different choice, a choice other then the Jewish theology.
I agree that everyone is unique and is at a different development level where they are capable of entertaining truths of different content. But the determination of where a child’s development is and if they are capable of contemplating alternative truths should be up to the child’s responsible and involved parents, people who are in the position to make that decision, not some Facebook.com group.
I take objection to: “alternative "truths"--really falsities--”
The Bible never discusses what the Sun is; it never states that it is a hot ball of gas 93 million miles away in the vacuum of space. The Bible never says that it is ~70% Hydrogen, and ~30% Helium, that it fuses that Hydrogen into Helium by the proton-proton chain to release nuclear energy that then radiates and takes eight minutes to reach Earth. Just because this is never stated explicitly in the Bible one object you claim to hold truth does that mean it is false?
The point then is that if these people were in a position of power they would be inclined to ban material deemed heretical to their position.
While I cannot speak for all who oppose The Golden Compass, I'm not about to advocate the destruction of heretical material for two reasons: 1) with the advent of the Internet, total destruction is impossible; and 2) such destruction gives power to heresy, and thus such a move is counterintuitive. Heresy should either be corrected or ignored. In this case, I choose the latter.
My problem with the Facebook.com group is that there is no dialog and no justification of their position.
I see no need to dialog over something which strike me as stupid, but judging from the comments from members of the group, if you have questions, I am sure people will be able to answer you. Failing that, I can probably pull myself away from genuinely good literature to attempt an answer.
Was Jesus Christ not skeptical and disapproving of the Jewish Magisterium?
Yes, and I don't think He expected the Magisterium of the Jews to tolerate his teachings; but neither did He say we should simply kill them. Instead, He pointed out the various flaws in their teachings, correcting as needed. The Golden Compass doesn't say we need to reason with the Magisterium; it says we need to destroy it. Pardon me for not being overly excited.
But the determination of where a child’s development is and if they are capable of contemplating alternative truths should be up to the child’s responsible and involved parents, people who are in the position to make that decision, not some Facebook.com group.
Most of us have no coercive power, thank goodness. I hesitated in joining the group at all because such an action struck me as futile, but figured expressing my disapproval--and that is all I am doing--was of some value.
Just because this is never stated explicitly in the Bible one object you claim to hold truth does that mean it is false?
Not at all. Revelation allows us to better understand the world, but science and other such tools may be of additional value. Of course, revelation is the ultimate arbiter, which is why ideas that cannot be entertained because they are contrary to Scripture can be said to be falsities. Claiming that God is in need of a killing is one such "falsity". And it is one which is in no way worthy of my support.
"with the advent of the Internet, total destruction is impossible..."
As far as banning or distroying something, history has proven that no matter what the odds people are against they will try to supress teachings not of their own. We must simply look at countries such as Iran, and China who filter the Internet, not that they succede but they still try.
"destruction gives power to heresy,"
Your own religion has tried to destroy content, there were 30 some Gospels written, but only 4 appear in the New Testament. The others have at times been actively suppressed especially when the New Testament was being Canonized which was around 130 Ad by the Bishop of Lyons.
"Heresy should either be corrected... "
Still a dangerous option one that has historically has not been humane. Need I give examples?
"The Golden Compass (TGC) doesn't say we need to reason with the Magiserium; it says we need to destroy it."
I am using TGC and the controversy it has created as an example of a lager pattern of behavior. I have not read nor seen the movie and am not defending the content of the book/movie. I stand behind the First Amendment in that its protection only goes so far as to protect freedom of speech as long as that speech does not directly encourage or incite violence.
"Revelation allows us to better understand the world,..."
Only a true statement if "world" refers to the spiritual/moral realm of the world. The Bible never describes how the physical world works:
It does not help the physicist find the laws of physics; nor chemists find the laws of chemistry; nor computer engineers build better faster more efficient/effective computers; Nor biologists discern the workings of biology.
"Revelation is the ultimate arbiter..."
Back to the founding of Christendom; Jesus and his followers entertained ideas and concepts that were contrary to Jewish scripture and law. Those ideas are the same ideas many now hold as absolute truth. If it happened before should we not expect it to happen again?
Your own religion has tried to destroy content, there were 30 some Gospels written, but only 4 appear in the New Testament.
That's unfair. Not anyone who writes a "gospel" gets to have it become part of the Canon. The Church used Her Authority to exclude heretical books. The alternative is a "living" Bible which adds books every year.
I stand behind the First Amendment in that its protection only goes so far as to protect freedom of speech as long as that speech does not directly encourage or incite violence.
So do I. I didn't say we should burn the books or destroy all copies of the movie. I said we should boycott both.
The Bible never describes how the physical world works:
It does not help the physicist find the laws of physics; nor chemists find the laws of chemistry; nor computer engineers build better faster more efficient/effective computers; Nor biologists discern the workings of biology.
Though interesting, the workings of the physical world are not of strict concern to the Christian. This isn't to say that one cannot be a Scientist if one is a Christian, but Scientific breakthroughs are valuable only insofar as they help save souls.
If it happened before should we not expect it to happen again?
No. Christ's claim was unique; as the "only begotten Son" He was in a perfect position to manifest God's plan; indeed, He was that plan!
There will be no more "fulfillment" since Jesus Christ has already died on the cross and destroyed death by rising from the dead.
Post a Comment
<< Home